Date: December 5, 2005
To: The Academic Community
From: Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary
Subject: December 5, 2005-Meeting of the University Senate
The fifth regular meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, December 5, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.
Prof. Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4 p.m.
Roll Call: Absent were Senators Debye, Weinstein, and Kikenea. Also absent were President Caret, and Vice President Moriarty.
Senator Siegel moved to approve the agenda. Prof. Roberge seconded. The Senate voted unanimously to accept the agenda.
Senator Storrs moved to accept the Minutes from Nov. 7, 2005. Senator Webster seconded. The Senate voted unanimously to accept the agenda.
REPORTS OF EX OFFICIO SENATORS
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT:
The President's remarks were presented by the Provost: USM Universities have been asked to come up with a 4 year plan. The President asked the Provost to mention to the Senate this 4 year programmatic plan. This will be discussed at retreat of Administrators, on November 8. First priorities are enhancing the workforce in Nursing, Allied Health, Computer Science, Business and Family Studies. Second priorities include Educational Outreach at Shady Grove, Heath Center, and Cherry Hill project. The third priority is Educational delivery. The key to "educational delivery" being proposed is the Trimester program. The University is also monitoring pilot programs for 4 master's programs and one Undergaduate program, all of which will be "taught" online. Also to be discussed are the MBA and Doctorate Program in Educational Leadership.
REPORT OF THE PROVOST:
The Provost suggested that more details about the above agenda will probably be available after the President's Retreat.
The Provost then turned to the Mission Statement: After the Senate approved its provisional form on Dec. 1 the Provost and President testified before the Educational policy committee of the Board of Regents. No one of the BOR had any issues with this revised statement. MHEC was supposed to have sent out responses to the revised statements about 6 weeks ago. They went out about a week and a half ago. The Provost anticipates there may be some responses from the private sector and from non-USM schools.
The President will again review the Mission Statement at Thursday's retreat. It will then be ready to bring back to the Senate for final approval at the February meeting.
The MBA Task forces are trying to make sure our joint program moves forward in a seamless fashion. The aim is to get this going by Fall 2006. In the agreement, there is a 2 year clock that begins to tick from the time that TU first offers the program. After that time, UB has to begin phasing out their program. So, ours will be online as well as live in the beginning of Fall 2006.
Prof. Siegel posed a fundamental question about the trimester. She noted that the issue had never yet come before the Senate, but it makes a radical difference in a number of things: student schedules, faculty workload, etc. This seems so fundamental, she argued, that it seems the Senate should need to address this.
The Provost replied: "We're really in a chicken and egg position. I have nothing to bring to the Senate until the System gives us the needed budget."
Prof. Siegel reiterated that there is a fundamental question about applying for funding for a trimester without consulting the faculty or the University Senate first.
The Provost replied that there are many questions about workload and compensation that can't be addressed until the administration knows whether or not it's supportable financially. Right now, though, he admitted, there is a real disconnect: the administration has submitted to USM a scenario that grows TU to 25,000. At the same time there is a growth plan that will accommodate only 21,000. The proposal for a trimester, he reiterated, needs to be discussed when he has something to bring before the Senate. If there is a pilot Trimester program, it will not begin until at least FY 08. In the TU business plan, he repeated, it's in FY 08 that TU would first look at it.
Prof. Siegel asked if a proposal for the pilot would come to the Senate.
Provost Brennan answered yes.
Prof. McLucas remarked that, as AAUP President, he is already hearing from a lot of faculty about this. The information gap needs to be closed, he urged.
The Provost explained that the fundamental question is whether they'll subsidize students in the Summer. The President has made several proposals of how that funding would look for a pilot.
Prof. Vatz echoed Prof. Siegel's still unanswered question, asking, "Are we correct in assuming that you would seek the Senate's imprimatur?"
The Provost noted that that is the subjunctive use of the Latin. In the Subjunctive sense, then, he answered, yes. "It seems to me," he continued "that once we get the money, we then would come to the Senate with a proposal." The administration has put forward a question of whether the system would support this pilot project.
Prof. Vatz noted that historically Senate approval has always been sought for curricular matters such as this.
The Provost suggested that the question is one of benefits for students: there is a need to realize the practicality of trying to accommodate students that the TU Administration has committed to accept. The question becomes whether TU can serve students better by giving more options, by making the summer semester more robust, and calling it a trimester. That would increase options for students. It's a potential benefit for students that merits a pilot, not so much to admit more students as to spread the options for the students we have.
Prof. Roberge suggested that before there's a pilot program, the Senate should have a big discussion about it, so that we can review all the options, etc.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT LEBERKNIGHT
V.P. Leberknight began by commenting on the weather, noting that TU would remain open through the evening, though there could be a delay in the morning, we'll see.
V.P. Leberknight then noted that in the last month, TU decided not to go with Web Tycho. They build their system for themselves, to deliver what they have. They would not be as responsive to TU as a private company might be. It's still on the table, but what TU did, was work out something so that TU can stay with Blackboard for another year. The administration is now discussing possibly going through a merger with them. If this doesn't happen, there is still Web Tycho as an option. Troy State Univ. in Alabama is pleased with them. They're part of this system, so TU will maintain communication with them. There's also discussion of an open platform type facility. For now, though, TU is still with Blackboard.
Police Chief Gerst then provided a presentation on campus safety. He was prompted do so because he realized that there is a campus perception of perceived increase in crime on campus and the deterioration of safety on campus. He proposed to address these rumors.
Mr. Gertz passed out a handout of statistics, showing enrollment for TU from 1995-2004, as well as statistics for 05 through Oct. 31. Enrollment has steadily increased. Yet crime has decreased. In addition, he pointed out, we're more than just an academic world, there are sports events, students events, etc. Yet while foot traffic has increased, Total Part I Crime has decreased.
The TU police dept. also has this data broken down by building, space, etc. He also handed out a data sheet organized by type of crime. The sheet indicated that there has been ome increase in destruction of property, thefts are down, slight increase in assault.
Also, when people raise crimes on campus, people always assume the victims are students, and assailants are outside of campus. But we often have crimes that don't affect students-they are against people visiting the campus.
Other data sheets indicated comparison of Uniform Crime Statistics, Part I Crime in 2004.
A lot of the perception about safety is based on information, Mr. Gertz asserted. In prior years, before we had the kind of instant data that we have now from Baltimore County, we might not have been aware of crimes as clearly or immediately. But now, Mr. Gertz gets a weekly crime analysis report from the Baltimore County police department.
Senator Butler asked whether it's possible to publicize statistics of what percent of crimes involve students and faculty and which don't.
Mr. Gertz confirmed that it's possible to do that analysis.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT RUBIN:
The end of Dec. is coming to a close, and TU is in the midst of its development efforts this year. V. P. Rubin thanked all faculty for all their financial support. He noted that if faculty hadn't yet had time to make a gift, gifts are still being accepted. TU has had great response this year; more gifts than ever. The MBA program will be a bonus in terms of people having a solid feeling about the institution. Also, the Center for Fine Arts is a boon in this respect.
The Development process is evolutionary, and involves people getting excited about what's happening here.
In the marketing areas, most of you have probably seen the 30-second spot about TU on television, playing on all the local stations. There are also radio spots and billboards for the "Thinking Outside" campaign. The purpose for this marketing was not necessarily to recruit students, but to change perceptions about the institution as a whole.
REPORT OF VICE PRESIDENT CLEMENTS:
V. P. Clements discussed the Base Realignment Commission Project (BRAC): 30-40,000 new jobs created will be created over the next few years. TU has been asked to help in terms of schools, waterways, police, etc. That is a major initiative that TU is working on, which will spread across campus.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
AAUP REPORT: PROF. MCLUCAS
Prof. McLucas announced that an AAUP Newletter would be distributed soon. The AAUP is reconstituting its committees. The AAUP has been responding to concern of some colleagues in College of Education about a representative of a state agency on a faculty search committee; faculty are worried that such an appointment represents the concerns of government agenda on a faculty committee, outside agencies dictating curricular decisions. Prof. McLucas noted that President Caret had mentioned that the assumption is that the outside agencies might control not-for-credit offerings, but for-credit offering will be continued to be controlled by faculty.
CUSF REPORT: PROF. SIEGEL
Representatives of CUSF are meeting with representatives of CUSF staff to discuss the systems's support for a proposal for increasing support of ORPS to bring it up to 9.33% from 7--%.
Another issue that has arisen is Health insurance. There is a perception that TU employees' coverage has changed also. Prof. Siegel heard a report that Rehabilitation services have been drastically reduced. CUSF is looking at gaining benefits for full-time non-tenure track faculty. State employees are only allowed to be employed for three years without benefits, but this clause specifically excludes faculty.
Prof. Siegel noted that the Student Research Expo will be March 15th and 16th.
SGA REPORT: SENATOR ACCARDI
Senator Accardi passed out copies of the results of the SGA Transportation Survey and a resolution that the SGA passed regarding textbooks, indicating that SGA supports recommendations of CUSF on textbooks.
The SGA has also been studying a misconduct policy in regard to solving rioting problems at UMCP. There is some concern that students could be kicked out of school unnecessarily. SGA is suggesting that this is not a statewide problem, and addressing each of the points of the policy.
Prof. Rosecky noted that very early in September, he decided to count how many violators there were in the faculty area of the Glen garage. He was told it was a temporary phenomenon. This problem continued. He feels strongly that faculty should not have to cope with the serious problems in parking that he has had to deal with this year. Where are the 800 new students going to be parking? This is not a small problem, he argued, but a reflection of the fact that the University is making commitments but not providing the infrastructure to deal with them.
Senator York reported on GSA activities.
Prof. Siegel noted that graduate students have faculty/staff permits. She asked if TU should perhaps consider having graduate student parking.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Motion 05/06-11:
That the text at 13:19-29, designating the nature, organization, or content of scholarship in general, should be removed. [Attached]
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Storrs asked if anyone was attached to these words.
Prof. Pitcher noted that the College of Education felt that all of the work of the faculty should support the Mission of the University.
V. P. Leberknight noted that exactly the same thing came up at the Board meeting of the College of Business and Economics.
Prof. Webster noted that he understood that there is an issue with outside Accrediting agencies that needs to be taken into accound here.
Prof. Rosecky noted that he could not object to the lines, so he didn't understand why they should be removed.
Prof. Leshnoff expressed that he was fully in favor of removing this. He argued that scholarship shouldn't be dictated. The nature of scholarship is to be thoughtful, careful, and creative. Prof. Leshnoff encouraged everyone to allow scholarship to be free and trust us as scholars to present careful scholarship.
Prof. Little suggested that perhaps we shouldn't require this particular guide, since there are other guides to scholarship in the revised P and T Document.
Prof. Roberge noted that when faculty undergo review, they have to judge the importance of different venues; this is a "public" presentation.
Provost Brennan expressed the conviction that citation in a document like this [the P and T Document] is arbitrary and the context is something that's unknown to him. This document really needs to stand on its own, without the need to refer to outside books. This seems limiting, he suggested, and he doesn't think it belongs there.
Prof. Vatz agreed with the Provost. Why cite this particular article as the means to assess scholarship?
Prof. Roberge noted that this is a major report.
Prof. Leshnoff called the question. Prof. Ballengee seconded. The Senate voted 18 in favor and 3 opposed to calling the question to a vote. \
The Senate then voted on the motion: 16 in favor. 2 opposed. 2 abstaining. The motion passed.
Prof. Vatz added that COFAC has the widest spectrum of what qualifies as scholarship. This is like the tip of an iceberg. But until someone gets to the problem of creating criteria for scholarship, this will remain an issue.
2. Motion 05/06-19:
Accept SGA Resolution 001, Concerning the Announcement of current campus activities by University Faculty during classroom sessions [Attached]
(Student Government Association)
Senator Accardi explained that this resolution isn't to require faculty to report, but to encourage faculty to help bring the community together.
Senator Butler noted that we look to our professors for guidance.
Prof. Roberge suggested that faculty announcing activities helps to encourage students to participate, and it makes the environment better.
Prof. Vatz added that there is very low attendance at basketball games.
Prof. Little noted that she was also in favor, though if faculty announced everything, they wouldn't have time in class. More than half of her students delete the Daily Digest without reading it, she added.
Prof. Storrs announced that he was also in favor
The motion came to a vote and unanimously passed, 22-0-0.
Prof. Siegel explained that this is to encourage faculty to be aware of the price of their textbook packages.
V. P. Leberknight said that he didn't want people to think there are no problems with TUs bookstore. One problem is that they don't get the book orders in time, but the other problem is competition. One of the ways that we have to keep our own bookstore is to provide excellent service. This applies particularly to the ability to obtain Used Textbooks for the students. V. P. Leberknight encouraged all faculty to think about the logistical problems that our bookstore must deal with when book orders arrive late.
Senator Accardi noted that the SGA voted unanimously in favor of this resolution. She urged faculty not to order the newest Edition, because then students are constantly buying new copies. Students are highly in favor of this resolution.
Prof. Tabak noted that she was in favor of all the items on this document, except for the first one. It is expected that faculty offer current knowledge in their classes; she has received comments on her student evaluations, when she hasn't used the revised edition, that she's providing outdated knowledge.
Prof. Webster noted that the first line of this says "only if necessary." In psychology, editions roll over obscenely. Typically, the changes are trivial. It's important for the students to understand that faculty are aware of prices, but sometimes we're not able to order old editions.
Prof. Siegel noted that the BOR has heard student complaints, and they're very sympathetic.
The motion came to a vote: 21-2-0, motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Motion 05/06-21:
Receive the Annual Report of the Student Appeals Committee [Attached]
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Hartzler-Miller moved to accept the motion; Prof. Rosecky seconded.
The motion came to a vote and unanimously passed, 21-0-0.
2. Motion 05/06-22:
Receive the Annual Report of the Student Financial Assistance Committee [Attached]
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Rosecky moved to accept the motion; Prof. Siegel seconded.
Prof. Siegel noted that it would be helpful if the Senate could have a spreadsheet with a report on financial assistance, including need-based aid, merit-based, how many are coming from private endowments, how many are coming from university.
Prof. Vonnie Shields indicated that she has all of that data broken down. She will append that next year.
The motion came to a vote and carried unanimously, 20-0-0.
3. Discussion Item: Salary and Benefits
The Senate Executive Committee proposes that the Senate discuss the following issues of salary and benefits: Salary Compression, Gender Equity, Health (or Fringe) Benefits for Lecturers and/or Adjuncts, Salary Equivalence across the University, and related financial issues. The Discussion should produce a set of specific concerns that will then be submitted to the Provost's Office, which will then gather the data relevant to these issues and provide it to the Senate for further consideration and advisement.
(Senate Executive Committee)
Prof. Pitcher noted that discussion should include how faculty are paid, especially for off-load. Sometimes four or five months can pass before faculty are paid.
Prof. Sullivan explained that we are trying to gather information, determine what issues need to be addressed and researched for discussion next Semester. Prof. Sullivan passed out the Proposed English Dept. Policy Regarding Lecturers, a note from Joyce Little regarding contingent faculty, and the AAUP statement on Contingent faculty.
Prof. Siegel noted that USM schools are paid in a completely different payroll system than the trustee schools, which include Towson. There are PINS in the trustee schools payroll. The approval for the PIN lines is no longer what it used to be. However, because the payroll systems are different, the way in which the Univ. of Maryland schools handle health benefits, etc., is quite different from the trustee schools. In other words, there are some artificial barriers that need to be worked around.
Prof. Vatz moved to adjourn; Prof. Storrs seconded. Prof. Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
8000 York Road | Towson, MD 21252 | 410-704-2000
